The Problem of the Senate
It’s often said that Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter “failed” in efforts to achieve major progressive structural reforms during their moments of opportunity in 1993-94 and 1977-78. But as Jonathan Chait persuasively argues this is more a situation where the opportunity for progressive change was deliberately squandered by congressional Democrats; especially Senate Democrats who work with the perverse structure of the world’s worst legislature to stifle change. Depressingly, Chait is able to mount a great deal of evidence that some of the same stuff is happening today to Barack Obama’s agenda.
On a related note, people sometimes have a model in their head whereby the typical moderate congressional Democrat is a solid-gold progressive who really wants to do great things for America but feels constrained by politics. That’s probably true of some of them. But one really shouldn’t assume that it’s uniformly true. After all, a Senator who wants to do the right thing on, say, climate change but worries that a strong cap-and-trade bill would be a tough political sell in his state ought to be eager to see cap-and-trade done through reconciliation. That way you can vote “no” like you think you have to, without the “no” vote killing the bill. And that’s hardly the only example. There’s tons of below-the-radar procedural stuff that a legislator whose “real” views are further-left than he thinks he can get away with could be doing. And I don’t actually see a ton of Senate Democrats trying to push those envelopes. But that’s something to think about when you’re eying a particular legislator and wondering where he or she really stands.
35 Responses to “The Problem of the Senate”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 30th, 2009 at 11:26 am
“the world’s worst legislature”
Maybe a slight exaggeration?
If it seems like “the world’s worst” to you, that’s probably not because it’s objectively the worst, but because you’re most familiar with its flaws.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Bankrupt.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:26 am
I’m very tired of the idea that Obama (or any other National Dem) is REALLY a progressive, but the institutions of his/her workplace keep him form effecting a progressive agenda.
This is the Liberal equivalent to the Bush cool-aide. Dems are not progressive, and don’t want to be. They cheered on most of Bush’s worst ideas – the same guys we’re talking about stood mute while Bush instituted torture, two wars, etc.
Obama broke a promise and voted FOR immunity for telecomms for violating our civil rights and breaking the law.
Reminds of the scene where a guy will only try and fight after he’s sure a couple of friends will “hold him back”.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:27 am
This Corrupt Bailout of the Financial industry is going to really hurt the Democrats in 2010. We hear all this bullshit about how the “toxic assets” might be worth something — but as I noted, vacant real estate depreciates at an alarming rate.
An article in today’s New York Times indicates that some banks are ABANDONING homes at the very end of the foreclosure process — because they have deterioated so badly that they have acquired a NEGETIVE value. I.e., they are not worth taking possession of because of the cost of taxes and condemnation.
See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/us/30walkaway.html?_r=1&hpw
THIS is the shit that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Geithner, and Bernanke have purchased with $10 Trillion of your tax dollars.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:34 am
If Obama and the Democrats really gave a shit about their base, they would make the tax cuts for the middle class and working poor PERMANENT. They would make the tax hikes for the Superrich PERMANENT. That way, if the Republicans regained power, they would still need to overcome a Senate filibuster and/or Presidential veto.
Obama and the Democrats would also fix campaign financing and the malign propaganda machine known as the US news media –and make those fixes permanant.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:37 am
This misses the point. The current process allows Sens. Nelson, Conrad and Lincoln to stand up and massage their egos by being “moderate” and screwing up the president’s plans. It gets them plaudits in Washington Post editorials and words of congratulation on Sunday talk shows. Politics here matters much less than vanity. These people want to seem important, and reconciliation would make them insignificant.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Phaerus
I’m very tired of the idea that Obama (or any other National Dem) is REALLY a progressive, but the institutions of his/her workplace keep him form effecting a progressive agenda.
Well if you look at his budget, it is progressive. So you’re wrong. Plus he’s pulling out of Iraq and following through with other progressive campaign promises.
This is the Liberal equivalent to the Bush cool-aide.
Your type (Glenn Greenwald, Krugman) is suffering from the Liberal equivalent of the Clinton derangement syndrome (or Bush derangement). Facts are spun and ignored.
FISA is one thing. You’re making the perfect the enemy of the good.
I was for Nader because of what Chait describes about Senate Democrats. I think Clinton performed worse than he could have given the circumstances. Thanks to “welfare reform” we’re missing some of the automatic stablilizers that could have mitigated the recessions impact on the average person.
Clinton via Greenspan gave us prosperity that was based on credit and bubble economics which was not sustainable. I believe Obama will do a better job.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Don Williams:
You really should start your own blog. You post constantly, and you’re hardly ever on-topic. when I see your name above a comment, i keep scrolling.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:49 am
That article is incredibly depressing because it is true. Democrats stripped the most progressive taxation out of Obama’s budget. They act like Republicans by standing up for corporate welfare, dirty energy, etc. I emailed the DNC and DSCC last week about some of these Dems. I said I would not give any money to the Party because a lot of Dems are obstructing Obama’s agenda. Haven’t heard back. I have no idea what to do beyond that. I live in TX and have two Republican senators who I don’t even bother calling.
Yes, it is a joke, the people who say Obama is not progressive enough because he is getting a lot of pressure from the right within his own Party. I am becoming more fearful that whatever health care bill passes will totally suck and not have a public plan because of Senator Nelson, Bayh, Landrieu, and others.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:55 am
RICO :
let me summarize your argument,
“you people who want Obama to stop torturing, illegal war and to follow the constitution demand perfection!”
March 30th, 2009 at 11:56 am
This is a huge cop-out. It is the President’s job to get the Senate on board, and the fact that Obama has a) a huge majority in both houses and b) just had a huge electoral victory should not make it that difficult.
Clinton at least had to wrestle with the perception that he did not have an electoral mandate. Carter is rightly viewed as a weak president because he was not effective in getting his agenda passed. Obama is in danger of the same fate.
Look at Bush — few would argue he was a good President, but he was very effective at getting out in front of his key policy initiatives (tax cuts, education, Iraq war) and getting them through Congress with little or no majority or electoral mandate. There’s no inherent differences between the self-interest of Democratic Senators and Republican Senators; only in the tactics and legislative acuity of the President.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:57 am
There is some truth to what you are saying. But its not like corporate interest groups in Louisiana wouldn’t know what Landrieu was doing.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:58 am
I’m increasingly persuaded that Senators work only by positioning themselves to the left, center and right of whatever issue is before them. If a bill changes things in a progressive way, Senators on the left will favor it, while deploring that it doesn’t go far enough; Senators in the center will favor it in principal, but believe it too radical/partisan/”expensive” and therefore offer amendments or fail to support cloture; Senators on the right will decry it as an unprecedented assault on freedom.
This is all complicated by those who will vote for an issue only once they know it will be defeated, or against when it is guaranteed to win. The whole thing’s kabuki.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
If it seems like “the world’s worst” to you, that’s probably not because it’s objectively the worst, but because you’re most familiar with its flaws.
There are more dysfunctional and more corrupt legislative bodies, though none with quite the same amount of smug, self-congratulatory satisfaction, nor the self-aggrandizement of nincompoops like John Cornyn or wastes of space like Mary Landrieu.
I prefer “the world’s greatest masturbating chamber”, myself.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Hey right go read Chait’s piece. You want to believe Republicans followed bush in their defense of special interests because Bush was a great leader. I want to believe that special interests say jump and Republicans and a few Dems say how high.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
The thing that drives me nuts with the Senate is that these guys have six year terms specifically to allow them to engage in good policy making. Its idiotic that a Senator would complain about politics when a Congressman (who has to run every two years) doesn’t. Its not politics that constrains these guys, its their ego and the need to be liked at the DC cocktail circuit.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
When it comes to human beings, think of the worst and most self serving reason they could have for doing something. 9 Times our of 10, it’ll be the right answer.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
What exactly was Carter trying to do that was so great and that Congress stopped him from doing?
March 30th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Politics here matters much less than vanity. These people want to seem important, and reconciliation would make them insignificant.
Well, politics matters, too. These Senators are from fairly conservative states. They love their jobs, and like most politicians want to keep them, and the way to do that if you’re from flyover country is to cultivate a reputation for “reasonableness” (ie., unreasonable conservatism). What this is really about is the legacy of the rich white guys who wrote the constitution. They’ve been too often hagiographed over the years, but it’s time to call them for what they were: defenders of the privilege and economic might of the few. They did their job too well, and the end result is the Senate. If we had a unicameral legislature (or a mostly ceremonial upper chamber) we’d be a much more progressive nation today. Anyway, we’re not going to be able to abolish the Senate, so reform of this repulsive millionaires’ club ought to become a top priority for liberals.
Right, making his tax cuts permanent, Social Security reform, immigration reform, his health care plan . . . but I have to cut this list of Bush domestic policy success stories short, since I have a rocket to Mars to catch.
Well, DTM, it’s undeniably the case that in recent years, the Republicans have exercised greater party discipline in Congress than Democrats. By definition, no tax cut is permanent. And, despite the legislative failures of Bush you mention, he did manage to get said tax cuts passed (with ruinous effects), war resolutions passed (with ruinous effects), Medicare part D enacted (with ruinous effects), and, I’m sure, one or two others I’m missing. I wish your vision of hapless GOPism were true, but it seems to me it’s mostly not.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Which is to say, while Carter clearly had issues with Congress, I think it’s wrong to conflate them with the issues that Clinton had. I also think it’s problematic to associate either earlier president’s problems with congress too closely with what appear to be Obama’s incipient problems with Congress.
Carter came to Washington as an outsider, and as a figure deeply distrusted by the Congressional leadership. He did very little to dispel that distrust. Basically, Carter came into office viewing Congress as the enemy, and things never really got any better.
Furthermore, Carter was arguably more conservative than the median Democrat in Congress. I’m not certain what major progressive initiative of Carter were supposed to have been stymied.
With Clinton, there were similar issues of the outsider who doesn’t really understand congress, and sort of coming in and viewing Congress as the enemy (the way they did health care reform is a good example). The fact that Clinton’s first major initiative was to pick a fight with Labor over NAFTA also does not speak well for him.
So, anyway, Obama’s current problems so far seem less intense than either of his predecessors. I’m going to withhold judgment until I see how this actually ends up working out.
What’s worth noting is that Obama doesn’t seem to be having any serious problems with the House – yes, you get Democrats talking about being independent, but little more than that – has any administration proposal had trouble getting through the house, or been modified in a more pro-business fashion as a result of the House’s process?
The key seems to be the Senate (as always). The basic issue is that the Senate fucking sucks, but we’ll have to see how it turns out.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Right, making his tax cuts permanent, Social Security reform, immigration reform, his health care plan . . .
Fair point. I should have been more clear: I was referring to Bush’s first two years in office (the most relevant comparison to Obama today, similar to how Matt cites 93-94 and 77-78 as analogous).
Ah yes, the often overlooked Article 1.5 of the Constitution.
Not a fair point. What I obviously meant is “If the president intends to achieve his legislative priorities, he has to actively get them on board. Failure to do so is a failing of the President, not the Senate.”
March 30th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Re Jasper at 22: “By definition, no tax cut is permanent.”
—————
Well, it is until it is changed by law. A law which can be blocked from passage by a Senate filibuster and/or a Presidential veto.
Is anyone amazed that when Bill Clinton and the Democrats had control of the Government from 1992-1994, they didn’t accomplish a single fucking thing on behalf of the common Democrat?
Whereas Bush and the Republicans were able to pass a $2 Trillion tax cut for the rich within 3 months of Bush taking office.
Anyone amazed that Democrats are now saying –AFTER they have been elected — that they want to have the tax cut for the middle class and working class EXPIRE within two years — instead of making it permanent.
In CONTRAST to the Republicans– who got a tax cut for 10 years for their patrons and fought tooth and nail to make it permanent.
March 30th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
With a congressional campaign costing over a million dollars minimum today, compared with a hundred thousand a decade ago, per CNN newsroom, the people in Congress from either party represent the haves, not the have nots. No wonder they are unresponsive and unprogressive!
For a more complete explanation of what happened to get us into the semi depression from which we now suffer, how business people mismanaging the system are just busy beavers creating dams that get in everybody’s way, and how to restore the economic flow, see this web site http://www.plaineconomics.com. The plan there is the least expensive true recovery plan available.
Better yet, tell your senators and representatives to read it, to stop their “pissin’ and moanin’,” and to get the plan into action. Let them know how all their campaign dollars will be worthless in their next congressional elections if they do not break up the dam that is starving all of us.
March 30th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
As an aside, Obama has been in office a little over two months.
I know, right? I think the people bellyaching about Obama are hilarious.
Bush was successful at the tax cuts, Medicare exapansion, AIDS prevention in Africa, installing Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court, and preventing another attack on the homeland. His appointment of Bernanke was pretty good as is the FDIC lady Sheila Blair.
The Republicans in Congress completely revolted on TARP I and as DTM points out Bush failed on many fronts. Immigration? Hello? He said that was his biggest regret.
March 30th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Is it possible that Obama is fulfilling a campaign pledge and playing nice-nice in the early stages, and simply holding his hounds at bay?
Does the anvil hanging over the Republican Party, tribunals of former Bush administration miscreants that has the potential scatter the Republican Party to the winds, give Obama any political leverage vis a vis congress?
March 30th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Re DTM at 24: “I’m not sure how to weigh Bush’s legislative successes against his failures, but my primary point is that he did in fact have many very significant failures.”
—————
1) I strongly disagree. Bush played the Democratic Caucus like a fucking fiddle — and if they don’t realize that yet then let’s add stupidity and denial to their list of shortcomings.
2) He stole $3 Trillion out of the Social Security/Medicare Trust Fund and gave it to the richest motherfuckers in the country as a tax cut.
3) For Democrats to say they “blocked” Bush’s Social Security reform is hilarious — his REAL “reform” was to discredit the Democratic Party by bankrupting their most prominent program. His proposed law was just to a token gesture to disguise his theft.
4) Bush also manipulated Democrats into supporting the expenditure of $2 Trillion –and 4500+ American lives — to seize the oil deposits of Iraq for Big Oil. He did that by framing the venture as “good for Israel” and threatening to pull billionaire donors to the Democratic Party over to the Republicans. Every time the Democrats criticized the Republicans for being in thrall to the rich, Karl Rove just grinned and forced the Democrats to suck Haim Saban’s dick in public.
5) Bush’s immigration “reform” accomplished its purpose –which was to show the blue collar union members of America that the Democratic Caucus is a whore for the Hispanic Lobby — and has not a shred of loyalty to the working members of its base. And that includes Afro-Americans.
6) And for his piece de resistance, Bush forced the newly elected Democratic Congress –including Senator Obama — to join him in giving $10 Trillion out of the public Treasury to the richest motherfuckers in the country.
Good luck with those social programs –even Obama is now acknowledging that some of his campaign promises will have to be “deferred”.
7) By the way — made any progress in the last 8 years on that $8 Trillion shortfall in Social Security funding and that $32 Trillion shortfall in Medicare? Baby boomers ain’t getting any younger — to the contrary, in fact.
8)Since Ronald Reagan came into office in 1980, the US Gini index of income inequality has risen from 40.3 to 46.3.
This chart shows what that means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg
March 30th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I didn’t even see where he argued this, much less persuasively argued it. The whole piece was about Obama’s budget.
March 30th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Chait makes a lot of good points, but honestly, I think this is premature. Yes, Ben Nelson is a dick and other farm-state and coal-state Dems are pains in the ass, but overall, Obama seems to be having a lot less trouble – even in the Senate – than Clinton or Carter did. The Senate Dem caucus, despite its Bayh-faction Blue Dogs, is a lot more homogenous than the ‘93-’95 Dem Senate caucus, which included people like Richard Shelby, Howell Heflin, J. Bennet Johnson, John Breaux, Sam Nunn and David Boren.
And even Obama’s budget, despite its headaches, is still, overall, pretty damn close to what Obama proposed. The removal of Obama’s taxation changes are maddening, but let’s not lose the forest for the trees – even the Senate version that Conrad put together is quite decent.
I think all of Chait’s points stand – I just don’t think that the situation is working out all that badly. At least not yet. We’ll see how things look in a couple years.
(And no, this relatively rosy view is not to say that things like filibuster reform and reforming anonymous holds isn’t absolutely necessary. Nor is it to say that Congressional Dems AREN’T mired in parochialism – just that they seem to be less so than they once did.)
March 30th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
And your second person would be directed at, say, The President?
One feel I’m starting to get from Obama’s methodology is a sense of architecture. Builidng a foundation with roots in legislative nuance, getting what you can done now, getting re-elected, and then really pushing the envelope. I hope there are enough Senators, especially like Jim Webb, who might change the Senate Think into something where, once you’re established, you can convince the people who voted for you that everything you’re doing fits into a bigger whole, a certain Gestalt, that lets you get past all the institutional rigor and bureaucratic drag.
Or we could put together some constitutional amendment that allots senate seats based on actual population, Senatorial districts that would cross state lines, so that the smaller states aren’t given more say in the matter.
Or, what the hell, let’s just abolish the stupid thing and have a unicameral legislature. Stupid non-democratic democracy.